check-view-name-exists

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It doesn't clarify whether the tool returns a boolean, errors on non-existence, is case-sensitive, or how the 'type' parameter influences behavior. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids irrelevant details. While it could be slightly more informative, it is not verbose or repetitive, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete. It omits critical context such as return value format, error behavior, and the effect of the optional 'type' parameter. An agent would likely need to infer or test these aspects, which is not ideal for effective tool selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (only 'type' has a description, 'View type qualifier'). The description adds meaning to the 'name' parameter by linking it to the 'view name' in the tool's purpose, but it doesn't explain how 'type' is used in the existence check. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves key semantics unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Check whether') on a specific resource ('a view name exists'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-view (fetches a view) and create-view (creates a view), by focusing solely on existence checking. However, it doesn't specify the output or edge cases, so it's clear but not fully comprehensive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like 'before creating a view to ensure uniqueness' or how it differs from get-view or check-viz-filter-name-exists. The description implies a simple existence check but offers no contextual advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.